Drug Safety

pp 1–8 | Cite as

Pharmacovigilance in India: Present Scenario and Future Challenges

  • V. KalaiselvanEmail author
  • Sushma Srivastava
  • Abhishank Singh
  • SK Gupta
Leading Article


Pharmacovigilance in India was initiated way back in 1986 with a formal adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring system, under supervision of the drug controller of India. India joined the World Health Organization (WHO) Programme for International Drug Monitoring in 1998, but was not successful. Later, the National Programme of Pharmacovigilance was launched in 2005, and was renamed as the Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) in 2010. In consideration of having a robust pharmacovigilance system in India, steps were taken. The National Coordination Centre was shifted from New Delhi to the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission (IPC) in Ghaziabad. The PvPI works to safeguard the health of the Indian population by ensuring that the benefit of medicines outweighs the risks associated with their use. The culture of reporting of ADRs has achieved remarkable success, with 250 PvPI-established adverse drug monitoring centres all over India and provision of training to healthcare professionals. The programme is striving hard to build trust between the physician and the patient, thereby increasing patient safety and the confidence of people in the country’s health system, in addition to the detection of substandard medicines and prescribing, dispensing and administration errors. The IPC-PvPI has now become a WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmacovigilance in Public Health Programmes and Regulatory Services. In spite of these achievements, several challenges are faced by the PvPI, like the monitoring of generic drugs, biosimilars, and disease-specific ADRs of antidiabetic, cardiovascular and antipsychotic drugs and, above all, creating awareness, which is a continual process. At the same time, the PvPI is trying to address other challenges like counterfeit drugs, antimicrobial resistance, and surveillance during mass vaccinations and other national programmes.



The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ghaziabad, for extending technical support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

Conflict of interest

V. Kalaiselvan, Sushma Srivastava, Abhishank Singh and S. K. Gupta declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Lenz W. A short history of thalidomide embryopathy. Terratology. 1988;38(3):203–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vargesson N. Thalidomide embryopathy: an enigmatic challenge. ISRN Dev Biol. 2013;2013:1–18. Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization A short history of involvement in drug safety monitoring by WHO. In: The importance of pharmacovigilance. Safety monitoring of medicinal products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland: 2002, p. 5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization. Handbook of resolutions and decisions of the World Health Assembly and Executive Board, Vol 11948–1972. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1973 (WHA16.36 Clinical and pharmacological Evaluation of Drugs).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization. International drug monitoring: the role of national centres (WHO technical report series No. 498). Geneva: World Health Organization; 1972.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta YK. Pharmacovigilance programme for India. Available at Accessed June 2017.
  7. 7.
    Kalaiselvan V, Thota P, Singh GN. Pharmacovigilance Programme of India: recent developments and future perspectives. Indian J Pharmacol. 2016;48:624–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adithan C. National pharmacovigilance programme. Indian J Pharmacol. 2005;37:347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta YK. Ensuring patient safety—launching the new pharmacovigilance programme of India. Pharma Times. 2010;42(8):21–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dhamija P, Kara S, Sharma PK, et al. Indian College of Physicians (ICP) position statement on pharmacovigilance. J Assoc Physicians India. 2017;65:63–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rakesh KR, Rakesh KP, Anil B. Under reporting of ADRs by medical practitioners in India—results of pilot study. Adv Pharmacoepidem Drug Saf. 2012;1:3.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. Introduction & functions. 2017. Accessed Dec 2017.
  13. 13.
    Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. IPC, NCC-PvPI as WHO Collaborating Centre. 2017. Accessed Nov 2017.
  14. 14.
    PvPI. Marketing authorization holders are pivotal in PvPI. PvPI Newsletter. 2017;6(15):8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    What is a signal? The classic WHO definition. 2017. Accessed Nov 2017.
  16. 16.
    Haemovigilance Programme of India. National Institute of Biologicals & Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission Collaboration. 2017. Accessed Nov 2017.
  17. 17.
    Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. Organizations involved. 2017. Accessed Nov 2017.
  18. 18.
    Mukherjee S, Maiti R. Haemovigilance: a current update in Indian perspective. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumar P, Thapliyal R, Coshic P, Chatterjee K. Retrospective evaluation of adverse transfusion reactions following blood product transfusion from a tertiary care hospital: a preliminary step towards hemovigilance. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2013;7(2):109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    PvPI. Reporting of adverse events due to medical devices is now PvPI’s duty. PvPI Newslett. 2017;7(18):8–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    PvPI. Important events. PvPI Newslett. 2016;6(15):4.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh GN. Director’s message. PvPI Newslett. 2017;7(18):3.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    WHO. NRA meets WHO standards on vaccine regulation. PvPI Newslett. 2017;7(18):6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panagariya A. Generic medicines in India: the myth and the truth behind the healthcare issue India. Available at Accessed March 2018.
  25. 25.
    Kaunain Sheriff M. Cheap generic vs costly branded: issues in picking right drug in India. Available at Accessed March 2018.
  26. 26.
    Nandagopal A, Shakeel Y, Tirunagari M. Biosimilars: current scenario and challenges in India. Acta Pharm. Sci. 2018;56(1):7.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chao J, Skup M, Alexander E, Tundia N, Dendy M, Wu E, Mulani P. Nomenclature and traceability debate for biosimilars: small-molecule surrogates lend support for distinguishable nonproprietary names. Adv Ther. 2015;32(3):270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Misra M. Biosimilars: current perspectives and future implications. Indian J Pharmacol. 2012;44(1):12–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaul U, Bhatia V. Perspective on coronary interventions and cardiac surgeries in India. Indian J Med Res. 2010;132(5):543–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaur S, Kapoor V, Mahajan R, Lal M, Gupta S. Monitoring of incidence, severity, and causality of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients with cardiovascular disease. Indian J Pharmacol. 2011;43(1):22–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh A, Dwivedi S, Gupta SK. Pattern and incidence of adverse drug reactions observed in cardiac clinic of tertiary hospital, Hakeem Abdul Hameed Centenary Hospital, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(5):847–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prabhakaran D, Jeemon P, Roy A. Cardiovascular diseases in India: current epidemiology and future directions. Circulation. 2016;133:1605–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singhal R, Khaleel A, Santani DD. Reporting and monitoring of adverse drug reactions with cardiac drugs. Int Res J Pharm. 2011;2(7):116–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Palaniappan M, Selvarajan S, George M, Subramaniyan G, Dkhar SA, Pillai AA, et al. Pattern of adverse drug reactions reported with cardiovascular drugs in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tarun W, Patil PA, Suresh VP. Monitoring adverse drug reactions in coronary thrombosis patients admitted to intensive cardiac care unit in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Pharm Pract. 2013;6(1):6–12.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    International Diabetes Federation. Belgium. Available from: [Accessed on January 11, 2016].
  37. 37.
    Ramachandran A. Know the signs and symptoms of diabetes. Indian J Med Res. 2014;140:579–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Indian Diabetes Market Report & Outlook for 2010-2015. Press release. Available from: Accessed on November 26, 2015.
  39. 39.
    Shalini Chawla, Shankar Kumar. Adverse drug reactions and their Impact on quality of life in patients on antipsychotic therapy at a tertiary care center in Delhi. Indian J Psychol Med. 2017;39(3):293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rothschild JM, Mann K, Keohane CA, Williams DH, Foskett C, Rosen SL, et al. Medication safety in a psychiatric hospital. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2007;29:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sengupta G, Bhowmick S, Hazra A, Datta A, Rahaman M. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in psychiatry out-patient department of an Indian teaching hospital. Indian J Pharmacol. 2011;43:36–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Piparva KG, Buch JG, Chandrani KV. Analysis of adverse drug reactions of atypical antipsychotic drugs in psychiatry OPD. Indian J Psychol Med. 2011;33:153–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kurmi P, Paul PK, Dutta SK, Das S. To study the pattern of adverse drug reaction of antipsychotic drugs in a tertiary care hospital of Assam. Int J PharmTech Res. 2015;8:101–5.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yen CF, Cheng CP, Huang CF, Yen JY, Ko CH, Chen CS. Quality of life and its association with insight, adverse effects of medication and use of atypical antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in remission. Bipolar Disord. 2008;10:617–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tiwari SC, Srivastava G, Tripathi RK, Pandey NM, Agarwal GG, Pandey S, Tiwari S. Prevalence of psychiatric morbidity amongst the community dwelling rural older adults in northern India. IJMR. 2013;138(4):505–14.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mishra H, Kumar V. Pharmacovigilance: current in North India. J Pharmacovigilance. 2013;1:2. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bhupendra Raj, Prabhakar Singh, Pankaj More, Manoj Indurkar, Vivek Pandey. Prospective study of adverse drug reactions monitoring in a tertiary care hospital, Rewa (MP). Sch J App Med Sci. 2016;4(11C):4023–7.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Maysa S, Doaa F, Rana AF. Pharmacist’s knowledge, practice and attitudes toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting process. Saudi Pharm J. 2015;23(2):147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hema NG, Bhuvana KB, Sangeetha. Pharmacovigilance: the extent of the awareness among the final year students, interns and postgraduates (PGs) in a government teaching hospital. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6(7):1248–53.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gupta P, Anvikar AR, Valecha N, Gupta YK. Pharmacovigilance practices for better healthcare delivery: knowledge and attitude study in the National Malaria Control Programme of India. Malar Res Treat. 2014. Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bhagavathula AS, Elnour AA, Jamshed SQ, Shehab A. Health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and practices about pharmacovigilance in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Kalaiselvan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sushma Srivastava
    • 1
  • Abhishank Singh
    • 2
  • SK Gupta
    • 3
  1. 1.Indian Pharmacopoeia CommissionGhaziabadIndia
  2. 2.Glaxo SmithKline, Consumer Healthcare LtdGurugramIndia
  3. 3.Delhi Pharmaceutical Science and Research UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations